It would depend upon your perspective. From mine anything that dictates a strong central government, coupled with quasi governmental industry, mixed with tight controls on personal freedom looks like a recipe straight from a leftist wet dream.

For my own views I would much perfer the animated pursuit of freedom our founders intended as opposed to some national glory that MAY be realized from a national socialist government.

Y'all have a nice day.

Just a little something I was talking about with HighWater earlier tonight on a different thread. Thought it would fit in well here.

Originally Posted by HighWaterI wouldn't accept oppression by White Fascists any more than I accept oppression by Jewish Extremists.

But I support your right to believe what you wish.You don't understand what Fascism really is. They like to equate Fascism with all out Totalitarianism these days, WRONG. That's never been the idea of Fascism, Fascism is no more totalitarian or oppressive than any other form of government. A Fascist is basically an ethnic Nationalist who is simultaneously opposed to both the Left(socialism,communism,marxism,liberalism etc) and the Right(capitalism,imperialism,neo conservatism). Ever since the Fascist regimes in Germany,Italy,Spain and elsewhere the media likes to use Fascism or Fascist as a synonym for oppressive totalitarianism, to disuade people from Fascist idealogy because it poses a serious threat to the globalists. But that's not what Fascism was ever about at all I am an ethnic Nationalist, I am simultaneously opposed to both the left and right, they're both no good. I believe in a strong leader who gets things done, no beating around the Bush. I am American, I am Fascist. Fascism is a major threat to the globalist/Zionist/NWO power structure. The return of Fascism is the absolute last thing they want to see. Fascism and National Socialism can work wonders, National(for the country) Social(for the people). Blood and soil, Nationalism, that's what true Fascism is really about.Originally Posted by HighWaterFascism by definition is authoritarian. The subordination of the people to the state. If your beliefs are different, perhaps you should find a different word to describe them.

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini

Doesn't sound much different than the ideals the "NWO" subscribe to.It is very different from the ideals of the "NWO" or.."ZOG". Because the Fascist idea of state is nation, in Fascism the state and the nation are one in the same, that's the whole idea. BLOOD & SOIL. So yes, you are subordinate to the state/nation in the sense that you are expected to work towards the betterment and advancement of your country, and your people as a whole, rather than just your own personnal gain. But that does not mean there is no room for individual achievement/advancement, it's not commie ism after all. But Fascism is a more collectivist idealogy than the every man for himself lets get all the money we can all for ourselves and screw everybody else all out capitalist society like America.

Fascism is no more authoritarian or totalitarian than any other form of government. Every system of government is authoritarian and totalitarian in some regard. What do you think laws are for? They have to be, or else they would lose control. That's what government is all about, maintaining control. Otherwise there is complete anarchy.

Originally Posted by HighWaterI edited my response before you posted your's. I'll switch that one back and put what I put there here.

"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." - Benito Mussolini

At any rate, my heart's not really into debating this here. I agree with Fascism in one sense, disagree in another. I value individualism, but realize it has its strengths and weaknesses, much like the collectivism of Fascism.

I don't feel like debating this here or now either, that makes two of us! ha. But Fascism isn't completely opposed to individualism though. The "Nazis" sure weren't. It's not communism, it's not a classless idealogy. In a Fascist state you rise through the ranks of society based on your own merit, which is the way it should be if you ask me. The cream of the crop rises to the top so to speak. Which is what the fore founders of America intended when they established this once fine country. "All men are created equal" in other words you earn your rank in society through your own merits, not birth right as was the case in Europe. You have to earn it. I think the fore founders of America had some pretty Fascist tendencies in some regards. Thomas Jefferson even said "every man should be not only a citizen but a soldier just as was the case in Rome and Sparta" (I may not have the exact wording but it's pretty close.) That's sounding rather Fascist to me. Sounds like something you would read in Mein Kampf or hear from Mussolini.

Just a little something I was talking about with HighWater earlier tonight on a different thread. Thought it would fit in well here.

Originally Posted by HighWaterI wouldn't accept oppression by White Fascists any more than I accept oppression by Jewish Extremists.

But I support your right to believe what you wish.You don't understand what Fascism really is. They like to equate Fascism with all out Totalitarianism these days, WRONG. That's never been the idea of Fascism, Fascism is no more totalitarian or oppressive than any other form of government. A Fascist is basically an ethnic Nationalist who is simultaneously opposed to both the Left(socialism,communism,marxism,liberalism etc) and the Right(capitalism,imperialism,neo conservatism). Ever since the Fascist regimes in Germany,Italy,Spain and elsewhere the media likes to use Fascism or Fascist as a synonym for oppressive totalitarianism, to disuade people from Fascist idealogy because it poses a serious threat to the globalists. But that's not what Fascism was ever about at all I am an ethnic Nationalist, I am simultaneously opposed to both the left and right, they're both no good. I believe in a strong leader who gets things done, no beating around the Bush. I am American, I am Fascist. Fascism is a major threat to the globalist/Zionist/NWO power structure. The return of Fascism is the absolute last thing they want to see. Fascism and National Socialism can work wonders, National(for the country) Social(for the people). Blood and soil, Nationalism, that's what true Fascism is really about.Originally Posted by HighWaterFascism by definition is authoritarian. The subordination of the people to the state. If your beliefs are different, perhaps you should find a different word to describe them.

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini

Doesn't sound much different than the ideals the "NWO" subscribe to.It is very different from the ideals of the "NWO" or.."ZOG". Because the Fascist idea of state is nation, in Fascism the state and the nation are one in the same, that's the whole idea. BLOOD & SOIL. So yes, you are subordinate to the state/nation in the sense that you are expected to work towards the betterment and advancement of your country, and your people as a whole, rather than just your own personnal gain. But that does not mean there is no room for individual achievement/advancement, it's not commie ism after all. But Fascism is a more collectivist idealogy than the every man for himself lets get all the money we can all for ourselves and screw everybody else all out capitalist society like America.

Fascism is no more authoritarian or totalitarian than any other form of government. Every system of government is authoritarian and totalitarian in some regard. What do you think laws are for? They have to be, or else they would lose control. That's what government is all about, maintaining control. Otherwise there is complete anarchy.

Originally Posted by HighWaterI edited my response before you posted your's. I'll switch that one back and put what I put there here.

"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." - Benito Mussolini

At any rate, my heart's not really into debating this here. I agree with Fascism in one sense, disagree in another. I value individualism, but realize it has its strengths and weaknesses, much like the collectivism of Fascism.

I don't feel like debating this here or now either, that makes two of us! ha. But Fascism isn't completely opposed to individualism though. The "Nazis" sure weren't. It's not communism, it's not a classless idealogy. In a Fascist state you rise through the ranks of society based on your own merit, which is the way it should be if you ask me. The cream of the crop rises to the top so to speak. Which is what the fore founders of America intended when they established this once fine country. "All men are created equal" in other words you earn your rank in society through your own merits, not birth right as was the case in Europe. You have to earn it. I think the fore founders of America had some pretty Fascist tendencies in some regards. Thomas Jefferson even said "every man should be not only a citizen but a soldier just as was the case in Rome and Sparta" (I may not have the exact wording but it's pretty close.) That's sounding rather Fascist to me. Sounds like something you would read in Mein Kampf or hear from Mussolini.

I know we are digressing a bit here but this post bears a response.

You claim Facism is different yet the only examples you provide, indeed the only one I know of, are of tyrants who imprison and or kill any oposition. That would not be the type of country I would prefer to live in. It reminds me of a communist who tells you how wonderful communism is yet they cannot provide a single example where it worked on any scale large enough to make an informed decision. Again, the examples of communism we know of are or were dismal failures and resulted in muder on a scale unimaginable for most people. Maybe facism/communism or any other ism involving a dictator will work "next time"?

We had a strong leader in King George, for my part I'll learn from history that the resulting nation formed, dedicated to the pursuit of liberty, after the break from George is superior to any velvet chains held by any benevolent, or otherwise, tyrant.

Looking from the outside, one might perceive apparent similarities between national socialism and the left-wing. However, the similarities exist only in a superficial manner, more or less like the word "socialism" in "national socialism". Looking from the inside, national socialism is rooted in conservative values, and our enemies are the same as those found in the traditional conservatives.

In addition to this, there's a great tendency to draw the superficial similarities between NS and the left based on one case: Hitler. Not all national socialists support his politics of economy, but the antipathy towards communism and class struggle in NS is often taken for granted.

You claim Facism is different yet the only examples you provide, indeed the only one I know of, are of tyrants who imprison and or kill any oposition. That would not be the type of country I would prefer to live in. It reminds me of a communist who tells you how wonderful communism is yet they cannot provide a single example where it worked on any scale large enough to make an informed decision. Again, the examples of communism we know of are or were dismal failures and resulted in muder on a scale unimaginable for most people. Maybe facism/communism or any other ism involving a dictator will work "next time"?

We had a strong leader in King George, for my part I'll learn from history that the resulting nation formed, dedicated to the pursuit of liberty, after the break from George is superior to any velvet chains held by any benevolent, or otherwise, tyrant.

Y'all have a nice day.

Ah, the old "Nazis-are-tyrants" argument.

Funny thing is, opponents of National Socialism claim we are living in the past

Funny thing is, opponents of National Socialism claim we are living in the past

Your quote was not from my post. However I would not disagree with it. What would you conclude from Hitler's rule? Liberty? Surely not. As a matter of fact I can offer not only historical perspective on the Nazi rule of Germany but accounts from someone who lived in Germany during that time. You would be well advised not to deny the accuracy of your quote to them.

As far as "National Socialism" vs other socialism, what differentiates it from any other socialism? Should one infer that "National Socialism" attracts the better angels among us? Are only Saint's allowed in the party? Who determines the Saint or Angel who will dictate our lives for us?

Most people have recognized the unarguable fact that human being are less than perfect creatures. That being the case when given the chance to impose their will upon those in a weaker postion they will. That fact would be a very accurate definition of tyranny.

Why would someone choose a master who has a modicum of intellegence? I mean not to question your intellegence but to question why you, a seemingly intellegent man, would seek servitude and serfdom over liberty and freedom? I must admit, I just don't get it.

Your quote was not from my post. However I would not disagree with it. What would you conclude from Hitler's rule? Liberty? Surely not. As a matter of fact I can offer not only historical perspective on the Nazi rule of Germany but accounts from someone who lived in Germany during that time. You would be well advised not to deny the accuracy of your quote to them.

As far as "National Socialism" vs other socialism, what differentiates it from any other socialism? Should one infer that "National Socialism" attracts the better angels among us? Are only Saint's allowed in the party? Who determines the Saint or Angel who will dictate our lives for us?

Most people have recognized the unarguable fact that human being are less than perfect creatures. That being the case when given the chance to impose their will upon those in a weaker postion they will. That fact would be a very accurate definition of tyranny.

Why would someone choose a master who has a modicum of intellegence? I mean not to question your intellegence but to question why you, a seemingly intellegent man, would seek servitude and serfdom over liberty and freedom? I must admit, I just don't get it.

Y'all have a nice day.

What is liberty or freedom?

You are free to do what you want to do as long as you have the prowess to do so and your liberty as only as long as you utilize that power. Nothing is given, by God or otherwise, everything is earned. So why do we need this delusional concept we're free?